Análisis probatorio de la viabilidad y aplicación de la prueba anticipada en los procesos penales en Colombia
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2025
Autores
Corzo Torrez, Sandro Yamid
Mendoza Florez, Oscar Fernando
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
La prueba anticipada en el proceso penal colombiano, regulada por la Ley 906 de 2004, permite la práctica de medios probatorios antes del juicio oral en situaciones excepcionales, con el propósito de preservar elementos de convicción que podrían perderse o volverse inaccesibles.
Aunque busca garantizar la eficacia de la administración de justicia, su aplicación ha generado controversias doctrinales y jurisprudenciales, especialmente en cuanto al respeto del debido proceso, el principio de contradicción y las garantías del acusado. Este ensayo analiza la funcionalidad, legitimidad y límites de esta figura, con base en su regulación legal y en los criterios establecidos por la Corte Suprema de Justicia y la Corte Constitucional, para determinar si se ajusta a los principios rectores del proceso penal y si puede ser considerada una herramienta eficaz sin vulnerar derechos fundamentales.
Se examina la evolución normativa y la aplicación práctica de la prueba anticipada en un sistema procesal orientado al juicio oral, público, contradictorio y concentrado, identificando los desafíos que plantea su uso. Asimismo, se plantea un análisis comparativo entre la necesidad de preservar la evidencia y la protección de los derechos fundamentales del procesado, particularmente el derecho a la defensa y al debido proceso. Finalmente, se propone la necesidad de una unificación jurisprudencial que defina con claridad el criterio de “extrema necesidad”, para evitar un uso excesivo de esta figura que comprometa su carácter excepcional, la seguridad jurídica
y las garantías procesales mínimas.
Preliminary evidence in Colombian criminal proceedings, regulated by Law 906 of 2004, allows for the use of evidence before oral proceedings in exceptional situations, with the purpose of preserving elements of conviction that could be lost or become inaccessible. Although it seeks to guarantee the effectiveness of the administration of justice, its application has generated doctrinal and jurisprudential controversies, especially regarding respect for due process, the adversarial principle, and the rights of the accused. This essay analyzes the functionality, legitimacy, and limits of this concept, based on its legal regulation and the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, to determine whether it complies with the guiding principles of criminal proceedings and whether it can be considered an effective tool without violating fundamental rights. The normative evolution and practical application of preliminary evidence in a procedural system oriented toward oral, public, adversarial, and concentrated trials are examined, identifying the challenges posed by its use. Likewise, a comparative analysis is proposed between the need to preserve evidence and the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right to defense and due process. Finally, the need for jurisprudential unification that clearly defines the criterion of "extreme necessity" is proposed, to avoid excessive use of this concept that compromises its exceptional nature, legal certainty, and minimum procedural guarantees.
Preliminary evidence in Colombian criminal proceedings, regulated by Law 906 of 2004, allows for the use of evidence before oral proceedings in exceptional situations, with the purpose of preserving elements of conviction that could be lost or become inaccessible. Although it seeks to guarantee the effectiveness of the administration of justice, its application has generated doctrinal and jurisprudential controversies, especially regarding respect for due process, the adversarial principle, and the rights of the accused. This essay analyzes the functionality, legitimacy, and limits of this concept, based on its legal regulation and the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, to determine whether it complies with the guiding principles of criminal proceedings and whether it can be considered an effective tool without violating fundamental rights. The normative evolution and practical application of preliminary evidence in a procedural system oriented toward oral, public, adversarial, and concentrated trials are examined, identifying the challenges posed by its use. Likewise, a comparative analysis is proposed between the need to preserve evidence and the protection of the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right to defense and due process. Finally, the need for jurisprudential unification that clearly defines the criterion of "extreme necessity" is proposed, to avoid excessive use of this concept that compromises its exceptional nature, legal certainty, and minimum procedural guarantees.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Prueba anticipada, Debido proceso, Principio de contradicción, Garantías procesales, Seguridad jurídica
